wait, all of this is because you can't tell the difference between women as a group and an individual woman?

In the rhetoric of feminism I can't:

"Women are strong and equal to men. You can not restrict their access just because of their gender."
"Women need safe places away from men because the are afraid and vulnerable. There must be some women only place that men can't go."

That doesn't make sense

"A woman is strong and equal to men. You can not restrict her access just because of her gender."
"Women need safe places away from men because the are afraid and vulnerable. There must be some women only place that men can't go."

This makes sense but it's not the way I have seen it stated.

I use the term statistical to refer to differences between groups instead difference between the individual. I also feel their is an over playing of the concept of fear in this conversation. I think the problem of men in women spaces is a much more complex social dynamic. Not that it's not a problem, but calling it fear kind of make women sound pathetic. I you can have a bunch of strong women still have the dynamic fundamentally altered for the negative by the introduction of men.

This is why I mentioned leadership and learning. There have been studies to show fundamental changes in group dynamic with women only groups and mix groups. None of the women in the study had been raped or abused and were not afraid of men. There was no oggling or anything sexual going on. But the performance of the women dropped when males were added to the group.

Men performed the same with or without women if you were wondering.

I will throw the question of motivation back at you here. Why is narrative that women are fearful of men so important to the concept of a women only space? Why can't it just be a complex social dynamic that is very hard to pin down?

uh, well - maybe the fact that a large number of women are raped, physically abused and murdered by men every year? and that those numbers are much higher than the corresponding attacks on men by women?

which goes to show that women have a very legitimate reason to be fearful of men. and the fearfulness makes it reasonable to shelter women from situations where they can be harmed - like women-only shelters for abused women, and women-only cars (in some countries) in trains - stuff like that.

but you have never defined what you mean by women-only space. as you can tell from the discussion here, there are many sorts of women-only spaces. some exist to provide women physical safety - surely you can agree that this is reasonable? and some are provided to give women opportunities or training they would not otherwise have. which you seem to be agreeing with, but i'm not too clear.

also, where do you get the "women are strong"? first off, there are many kinds of strength. and second off, equality has nothing to do with strength. should my (or anyone's) ability to run for office be determined by the amount i can bench-press? should the respect with which the police treat my complaint of rape be set by how strong my willpower is when it comes to chocolate? did congress pass the voting rights act because martin luther king beat lyndon johnson in thumbwrestling?

you are making up an argument, and then expecting us to answer it. better to start with the real basis for feminism._________________aka: neverscared!

Actually thy the part he quoted has some basis in fact. I know I'm not going to get much traction because I'm not sure i've got a link, and its based on a remembered conversation with my roommate when she was going to grad school about middle and high school girls performing better in certain subjects in an all female setting.

I'm fuzzy on the details and ill ask her about it when she gets back to see if i can pull up something more concrete and post it here, but im pretty sure that was the gist of the thing._________________

There have been studies to show fundamental changes in group dynamic with women only groups and mix groups.

Cite these studies please.?

Ugh. Can't tell you specifically.

2 of them were from NPR about a year back. I can't find the link to the news article any more. But they did a story leadership groups and found improvements when women were left to their own devices instead of having mixed groups. I looked it up at the time but I've lost the info. I think they were university of Harvard studies involving leadership groups.

Another one was a study done at a residential school I was teaching at. Using troubled kids. This one you could argue abuse was a factor since that was a major cause of the emotional problems in the students. But since the female students were still with a male teacher (me), and most of the abuse did come from older authority figures for these girls (aka people like me), I don't know how that logic would work. The study was done by grad students at the university of Hartford but I can't tell you where the results went.

The remaining two were studies on learning patters among children. I can find one of them here:

Where the conclusion was completely balance mixed groups were the best but if there was a majority women or men the dynamics where thrown off. I also question what the research defined as best in this study buy you can see how complex the dynamic can get.

I can not quickly find the other one with children. It measured self esteem through a questionnaire after working in groups and showed advantages to the girls when working alone.

Both of the children studies should not have issued of abuse or male gaze as factors as these kids are a bit young for it.

Sorry I can't be more help but it's bit of information I picked up here and there. Also anecdotal evidence based on years of teaching. Dynamics change dramatically when men are present in a classroom of learners. And it's not about fear or feeling uncomfortable. It is a much more complicated system. Human are much more complex than a binary fear/safety system.

The college I attended had a women only and a men only dorm. Equality at last! I lived in the women only dorm for 2 years. It was really just about the studying environment and not about much else for me.

A women's tent at a concert huh? I'm betting this was all about creating a safe area for women who came to the concert alone or with only other women. Would I feel comfortable going to a rock concert by myself? Nope. Would I feel comfortable going to a rock concert if I knew there was a women tent to view it from? Maybe, but I'd have to REALLY want to see that band. The safety thing is hard to explain to most men.

Are you worried about the couches in some women's bathrooms too? That's a glaring inequality for sure._________________Eureka00: "Reminding you of your addictions" since 1982.

I will throw the question of motivation back at you here. Why is narrative that women are fearful of men so important to the concept of a women only space? Why can't it just be a complex social dynamic that is very hard to pin down?

This is an odd question, as though the experience women have can be changed to make a better narrative.

What do you know about the day-to-day experience women have? How are women treated when they're out alone? How do men approach them to express interest? How do men handle being blown off? What proportion of their interaction with men carries a sexual overtone?

Let's suffice it to say that overarching gender equality does not mean men and women have identical access to all things. You don't need a mammogram, and a cisgender woman doesn't need a prostate exam. Likewise, because the world is more or less built to cater to men we don't need safe places to protect us from women. Our health needs are not equal in kind, and thus our health care is also not equal in kind. Likewise, our social needs are not equal in kind - men don't have trouble finding places that are implicitly just for them, nor are they generally hassled by women in the way women are hassled by men - and thus our social services aren't equal in kind. If the social situation changes then services will adapt to changing needs, but claiming women only spaces are sexist is looking at it backwards.

But the fundamental flaw in your logic is assuming that general equality must mean that everyone has access to exactly the same things, and I don't see any reason to assume that that's true._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

"We're delighted to offer a Red Tent space at Siren Mountain Jam! The Red Tent Movement is a revival of the ancient custom of women taking time away from their daily lives during menstruation, at new moons or full moons, or any time that women are gathering together to reflect and celebrate. Sisters of all ages and stages are welcome to come visit this safe and sacred space for women, and discover what it holds for you."

It was a crimson tent a ways away from the music. Had a big vagina shaped entrance. Weird looking thing. Apparently you were supposed to go their if you were menstruating and... I have no idea. Their was a lot of mystic voodoo talk about connecting to goddesses and other stuff I hold no stock in. When the word safe is used here I got the sense it was a metaphysical meaning not a physical or psychological one.

Anyway it was primarily used by kids (male and female) as a place to play hide and seek. I don't know how that affected the goddess mojo but the universe didn't implode so I guess it was ok.

I keep hearing about these mythical couches in women's bathrooms and I don't think I've ever actually seen one in real life.

I have. I don't remember where - maybe a mall? They are few and far between.

There was a candid camera joke where a 'rest room' had no toilets, but instead was a big room with big comfy couches. It was nicely deorated, too. They pretended they were conducting market research to see how such a room would go over._________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]